State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Nek Ram

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR NUMBER

67/2005 dated 17.4.2005, Registered in Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, HP, under Section 451 and 354 IPC

TRIAL NUMBER Number

Number 174-2 of 2005, Decided on 1.10.2008, by learned Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla.

NOTICE OF ACCUSATION & TRIAL COURT'S VERDICT

Accused Nek Ram

451 & 354 IPC

Accused acquitted

Challenging the acquittal of accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC, the State had come up before this Court by filing the criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) CrPC.

On 17.4.2005, the victim visited Police Station Rampur and informed them about the molestation. She stated that on 16.4.2005, her husband was not at home. Both of her children had gone to attend the school. Her mother-in-law had gone to cut grass, and father-in-law had gone to Rampur. Thus, she was all alone and being unwell, and she was in her room. At about noon, accused Nek Ram visited her room and started flirting with her by moving his hand on her breasts. On this, she began grappling with him. In the meantime, Nirmala Devi reached there and knocked at the door, and immediately after that, Nek Ram ran away. After that, when her mother-in-law returned home, she disclosed the incident to her, and the next day she visited the Police station along with her father-in-law. Based on the allegations, the police registered the FIR mentioned above.

The investigator arrested the accused, recorded the statements of Nirmala Devi as well as her mother-in-law, and prepared the site plan. After completion of the investigation, the investigator found a case to launch the prosecution.

Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, framed the charges against the accused of commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After examination of the witnesses, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the circumstances. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

Vide judgment as mentioned above, learned trial Court did not found the evidence to be convincing and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Feeling aggrieved, the State came up before this Court by filing the present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING:

In FIR, the victim mentioned that she was alone at home and being unwell was sleeping in the room. It came in the victim and other witnesses' cross-examination that her house was in a thickly populated locality, where there was a public tap, and people would visit such a place to fetch water throughout the day. It also came in evidence that the residence was in the foothills/valley and was hot, unlike the hilltop. It has come in evidence that there was a wire-mesh door, apart from a wooden door, and at that time, the wire-mesh door, which had a spring, was closed. Thus, usually, a lady, who is alone at home and keeping in view the location of her house, would bolt the door from inside. While drawing the site plan Ex.PW-6/A, the investigator is silent about this aspect. Although there is no cross-examination about the bolt fixed on the door. Still, judicial notice can be taken that usually, people take care of a working bolt in the doors, especially when the houses are located in thickly habitated localities.

PW-3 Main Ram, the father-in-law of the victim, gave an entirely different version. In his cross-examination, he stated that his daughter-in-law, i.e., the victim, had told him only about the beatings given by Nek Ram.

In FIR, which is not supposed to be an encyclopedia, she did not speak about raising voice or cries or her mouth being gagged but only stated that she resisted by entering into a scuffle. During her examination-in-chief as PW-1, the victim took a somersault and noted that the accused entered her room and started grappling with her and hit her breasts with hands, due to which she suffered pain. She further stated that in the meantime, Nirmala came there, and then the accused ran away. She did not utter even a single word that Nirmala had reached there on hearing her shrieks. Even she did not speak about any shrieks being raised by her. To the contrary, Nirmala, who testified as PW-4, stated that she, along with the victim, had purchased suits, and to hand over her suit, she had visited her home. She said that when she was near her house, then she heard the shrieks of the victim. When she opened the door, she found Nek Ram pressing her breasts, on which she stated 'Shabash' (Good Job), and then Nek Ram ran away.

The primary contradiction in the version of the victim and the eye witness is that according to the eye witness, she heard shrieks of the victim, whereas the victim did not testify about raising any voice.

The second aspect, which raises serious doubt about the entire episode, is that Nirmala, on seeing the accused pressing breasts of the victim, said 'Shabash.' It is somewhat sarcastic. It becomes significant because PW-4 admitted in her cross-examination that her husband is involved with the victim. This fact got corroboration from the victim's statement when she acknowledged in her examination-in-chief that before this incident, the husband of Nirmala PW-4 had also done a similar act with her, but it was compromised. She also tendered in evidence the copy of such compromise deed, which is mark- 'A'. She further admitted that the house of Nirmala is opposite to the home of the victim, and her husband, Paras Ram, had entered her room at midnight. That time, the victim's husband and mother-in-law were not at home, and only father-in-law was present, who caught him.

Another significant aspect of the matter came in the statement of PW-2 mother-in-law of the victim, who testified that Nirmala must have raided the house of the victim to capture Nek Ram because Nirmala was not in good terms with Nek Ram. PW-4 Nirmala initially stated that her husband was caught with the victim in a creek, however, later she said that she does not know about this. The victim admitted in her cross -examination that when she was caught with Paras Ram, husband of Nirmala, then at that time, a female 'Panch' (Ward member of Panchayat) visited her home and advised her to live with decency.

In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the circumstances regarding PW-4 Nirmala entering the house, hearing the shrieks and uttering the word 'Shabash' and then seeing her the accused running away are not at all mentioned.

Given above, the analysis of the entire evidence creates a significant dent in the victim's testimony, and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The judgment of the trial Court is also to a similar effect. Thus, this Court finds no illegality in the same, and the same is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the appeal fails, and the same is therefore dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled and discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of.